The suit was filed on April 19, 2006 against Allegheny Energy, Inc., and numerous other companies with coal-fired generation facilities.

It was brought on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in Mississippi who were harmed by Hurricane Katrina.

The named plaintiffs allege that the emission of greenhouse gases by defendants contributed to global warming, thereby causing Hurricane Katrina and plaintiffs' damages. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On Dec. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on jurisdictional grounds and joined a motion filed by other defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

At a hearing on Aug. 30, 2007, the Court granted the motion to dismiss that Allegheny Energy had joined, and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that ruling on Sept. 17, 2007, and the appeal will now proceed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The suit is “Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.

AMERICAN ACCEPTANCE: Faces Suit in Ind. Over Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------American Acceptance Co., and the law firm of Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician Professional Corp., are facing a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana for allegedly violating federal debt collection law, Erik Potter of The Gary Post Tribune reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 27, 2007 by Donna Ketchem on behalf of herself and 50 other Indiana consumers against both defendants, who were located at the corner of 86th Avenue and Broadway in Merrillville, Indiana.

The suit claims both businesses are owned by the same people, with American Acceptance Co. purchasing delinquent debt from credit card companies and turning it over to Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician to pursue collection in court.

The 50-plus members of the suit claim that American Acceptance Co. was misleading when it threatened to charge consumers the legal fees it incurred in collecting their debt, because it was not legally able to collect those fees.

The suit claims that, given the “substantial identity of interest” between American Acceptance Co. and Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician, the firm functions like an in-house firm and falls under the same rules.

The suit is “Ketchem v. American Acceptance Co et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00415-RLM-PRC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana under Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. with referral to Judge Paul R Cherry.

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: $100M Securities Suit Settlement on Hold--------------------------------------------------------------The settlement in the matter “In re American Express Financial Advisors (AEFA) Securities Litigation,” which was filed against AEFA -- now known as Ameriprise Financial Advisors, will not be implemented until an objector's appeal, which is primarily contesting the attorney’s fees allocation, is resolved.

In October 2005, the Company reached a comprehensive settlement regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against the Company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004 called, “In re American Express Financial Advisors (AEFA) Securities Litigation.”

Among the allegations in the AEFA Securities Litigation, the Plaintiffs contend that they were sold financial plans and/or advice that contained one-size-fits-all recommendations, in order to generate fees for AEFA.

These recommendations were, in part, designed to place investors' money into non-proprietary “Preferred” or “Select” mutual funds, as well as AEFA proprietary funds, which included:

-- AXP Global Technology n/k/a RiverSource Global Technology;

-- AXP Global Technology F n/k/a RiverSource Global Technology F;

-- AXP Equity Select A n/k/a RiverSource Mid Cap Growth;

-- AXP Growth A n/k/a RiverSource Growth A;

The settlement, under which the Company denies any liability, includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class members.

The class members include individuals who purchased mutual funds in the Company’s Preferred Provider Program, Select Group Program, or any similar revenue sharing program, purchased mutual funds sold under the American Express or AXP brand; or purchased for a fee financial plans or advice from the Company between March 10, 1999 and through April 1, 2006.

On Feb. 14, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a Final Fairness Hearing for June 4, 2007.Final approval was granted by the Court on July 18, 2007.

The Court issued an Order and Final Judgment that dismissed the Class Action Complaint with prejudice, released the defendants from all liability for the claims asserted and any other claims based upon the same core allegations, and enjoined class members from asserting such claims in the future.

In August 2007, an objector filed an appeal, primarily contesting the attorney’s fees allocation. The settlement will not be implemented until the appeal is resolved, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. -- http://www.ameriprise.com/-- is engaged in providing financial planning, products and services that are designed to offer solutions for its clients’ asset accumulation, income and protection needs.

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in “Gallus” Case---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “John E. Gallus et al. v. American Express Financial Corp. and American Express Financial Advisors Inc.,” which was originally filed in June 2004 against American Express -- now known as Ameriprise Financial, Inc., are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to grant the defendant's summary judgment motion.

Plaintiffs allege that they are investors in several of the Company’s mutual funds and they purport to bring the action derivatively on behalf of those funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

They also allege that fees allegedly paid to the defendants by the funds for investment advisory and administrative services are excessive.

Plaintiffs seek remedies including restitution and rescission of investment advisory and distribution agreements.

They later would voluntarily agree to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

In response to the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the Court dismissed one of plaintiffs’ four claims and granted plaintiffs limited discovery.

In April 2007, the Company moved for summary judgment on all claims.

On July 6, 2007, the Court granted Ameriprise’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Plaintiffs have appealed the Court’s decision, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. -- http://www.ameriprise.com/-- is engaged in providing financial planning, products and services that are designed to offer solutions for its clients’ asset accumulation, income and protection needs.

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Seeks Ruling in Advisors' Fees Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to rule on a motion for summary judgment in a purported class action that alleges Ameriprise Financial, Inc. miscalculated advisors' fees.

The lawsuit, “Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al.Case No. 00-cv-01027,” was filed in March 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

It has been brought as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport to represent all of the company's advisors who sold shares of Real Estate Investment Trusts and tax credit limited partnerships between March 22, 2000, and March 2006.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and restitutionary damages as well as injunctive relief, alleging that the company incorrectly calculated commissions owed advisors for the sale of these products.

In September 2007, the Company moved for summary judgment on all claims and is awaiting the Court’s ruling on the motion, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

APPLERA CORP: Continues to Face Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------Applera Corp. and some of its officers continue to face a securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Applera-Celera Genomics stock in the company's follow-on public offering of Applera-Celera Genomics stock completed on Feb. 6, 2000.

In the offering, the company sold an aggregate of approximately 4.4 million shares of Applera-Celera Genomics stock at a public offering price of $225 per share.

The suit was commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May 2000. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to provide patent protection to the company's genomic-based products.

Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought, or intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the complaint also alleges that the company did not adequately disclose the risk that the Celera Genomics group would not be able to patent this data.

The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper.

On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class action.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

ARCHSTONE WESTBURY: Tenant Sues N.Y. Apartment Over Water Leaks---------------------------------------------------------------Archstone Westbury apartment complex in Westbury, N.Y. faces a purported class action by a resident claiming mold and water leaks in the property made her sick and damaged her property, Newsday reports.

The suit was filed by Andrea Sorrentino, a business executive, who moved to an apartment owed by the defendants in June 2005. According to the report, Ms. Sorrentino learned of the water problems when the parent company of apartment informed tenants last week that they move out by March 31 so that renovation may begin.

"Ms. Sorrentino moved into a luxury apartment building with extremely high rents and had the right to expect not only habitability, but a luxury standard of habitability," said Mr. Cohen.

According to the report, last week, it was no yet clear what caused the leaching of water into the walls of the upscale development, soaking insulation and threatening interior mechanical equipment and structural integrity. Archstone-Smith said it was still investigating whether the construction and design of the complex were the possible causes.

On Aug. 16, 2007, a former employee of the Company filed a lawsuit in Orange County California Superior Court titled, “Davila v. Beckman Coulter.”

The lawsuit alleges claims on the plaintiff’s own behalf and also on behalf of a purported class of former and current Beckman Coulter employees.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders with respect to meal breaks and rest periods, the payment of compensation for meal breaks and rest periods not taken, the information shown on pay stubs, and certain overtime payments.

It also alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices.

The plaintiff is seeking back pay, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees, and seeks to certify this action on behalf of the Company’s nonexempt California employees.

Beckman Coulter, Inc. -- http://www.beckman.com/-- is a manufacturer of biomedical testing instrument systems, tests and supplies that simplify and automate laboratory processes. It designs, manufactures and sells systems, services, reagents and supplies to clinical and life science laboratories worldwide.

BUCA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Minn. Securities Complaint----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action against BUCA, Inc. are appealing a dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota of the second complaint in their case.

Between Aug. 7, 2005 and Sept. 7, 2005, three identical civil actions were commenced against the company. The three actions were later consolidated.

On Jan. 11, 2006, the four lead plaintiffs filed and served a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint was brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the company's common stock in the market during the time period from Feb. 6, 2001 through March 11, 2005.

The lead plaintiffs allege that in press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings issued during the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the company's income, revenues, and internal controls, which allegedly had the result of artificially inflating the market price for the company's stock.

They assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, plus an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On Feb. 26, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Complaint, which was granted on August 30, 2007.

Judgment was entered against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remains pending, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, et al. v. Buca, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-1762,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan W. Frank with referral under Judge Arthur Boylan.

CIB MARINE: Opposes Motion to Lift Stay in Wis. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has yet to rule on motions to vacate the stay of discovery in a securities fraud suit against CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc.

On June 3, 2005, a first consolidated complaint was filed by Dennis Lewis, a shareholder, and other alleged shareholders of CIB Marine, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, against CIB Marine, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and KPMG, LLP.

The filing consolidated two actions that had been filed in January 2005:

-- one filed by Mr. Lewis in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division; and

-- another filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division by Elaine Sollberger, a purported shareholder, whose claims were voluntarily dismissed in connection with the consolidation, and have not been reasserted in the consolidated complaint.

Plaintiffs sought to maintain the action as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of CIB Marine between April 12, 1999, and April 12, 2004, claiming violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by CIB Marine and other defendants and liability of certain defendants other than CIB Marine and KPMG under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons.

The substance of the complaint is that the financial condition of CIB Marine was overstated with the result that members of the purported class acquired their CIB Marine stock at inflated prices. Plaintiffs seek money damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The court granted the motion of CIB Marine and several other defendants to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the action is now pending.

All defendants moved to dismiss the action on various grounds. On Oct. 12, 2006, the court denied CIB Marine's motion to dismiss, granted in part the motions to dismiss filed by the individual defendants and granted the motion to dismiss filed by KPMG.

CIB Marine and the individual defendants have filed answers to the pending complaint denying any liability. An additional person has moved to intervene as a plaintiff in the action.

In light of a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that addressed the pleading standards that must be satisfied by the plaintiff in a case such as this one, on July 16, 2007, CIB Marine and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, a motion for reconsideration of the ruling on the motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of the action on the ground that the plaintiffs have not satisfactorily pleaded one of the essential elements of their cause of action. That motion has been fully briefed and no date has been set for a decision.

On Nov. 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint as to KPMG, which KPMG moved to dismiss. On Aug. 13, 2007, the court granted KPMG’s motion and dismissed the action as to it.

As a result of the filing of the initial motions to dismiss, all discovery in this action was stayed automatically. Plaintiffs have moved to vacate that stay of discovery, which all defendants opposed based on KPMG’s pending motion to dismiss the further amended complaint filed by plaintiffs against KPMG.

In granting KPMG’s motion to dismiss, the court noted the pendency of the motion for judgment on the pleadings described above and ruled that the stay of discovery will remain in place.

Plaintiffs have filed a separate motion for a limited lift of the stay of discovery, which CIB Marine and the individual defendants opposed in their response filed on Sept. 11, 2007.

The court has not set a date to rule on the motions to vacate the stay of discovery, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is “Lewis et al. v. Straka et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-01008-LA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Lynn Adelman.

The Gambrills residents have been affected by groundwater contaminated with toxins including arsenic, lead and cadmium, which are linked to cancer and other serious health effects.

So far, 34 residential wells have been polluted by Constellation's reckless negligence. The dump sites also sit atop the deep aquifer that supplies Crofton's municipal wells, which residents fear may be threatened by future contamination.

“What this $19-billion dollar a year energy giant continues to do to this community is blatantly unconscionable,” said Prince Georges County Executive Wayne Curry, a member of the Murphy firm legal team. “To add insult to injury, they told this community for years that dumping fly ash in an old mine site was actually beneficial.”

Mr. Curry added, “Constellation seems to think these neighbors should be able to get by on bottled water and garden hoses hooked up to fire hydrants, while they constantly worry over their health and watch their property values plummet.”

“By filing this suit, the victims and the Murphy firm legal team form the vanguard of citizens trying to solve a national health and environmental crisis,” according to Mr. Curry.

“Under-regulated fly ash dumps are scattered throughout the U.S. and many of them are badly polluting groundwater, surface water and the air with contaminated dust at a risk to individuals living near the dump sites. Regulations have failed in so many instances to protect nearby residents, so people must bring suit to protect themselves.”

DELTA FINANCIAL: Responds to FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.------------------------------------------------------------A subsidiary of Delta Financial Corp. faces a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In or about August 2007, the company received notice that it has been named in a lawsuit styled as a class action and collective action filed in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York. The suit alleges that Fidelity Mortgage Inc., now a division of Delta Financial's other subsidiary, Delta Funding Corp., did not pay its loan officers overtime compensation and/or minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and New York and Ohio state wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks with respect to the FLSA collective action claims:

-- an amount equal to the unpaid wages at the applicable overtime rate,

-- an amount equal to the overtime wage damages as liquidated damages,

-- judgment that Fidelity willfully violated the FLSA,

-- prejudgment interest and

-- costs and attorneys’ fees.

With respect to the New York state wage and hour laws claims, the complaint seeks:

-- certification of a class of plaintiffs,

-- an amount equal to the unpaid wages at the applicable overtime rate, and

-- costs and attorneys’ fees.

With respect to the Ohio state wage and hour law claims, the complaint seeks:

-- certification of a class of plaintiffs,

-- an amount equal to the unpaid wages at the applicable overtime rate,

-- an amount equal to six percent of the unpaid overtime wage, or $200, whichever is greater, as liquidated damages, and

-- costs and attorneys’ fees.

In October 2007, the company filed an answer to the complaint, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

DELTA FINANCIAL: Settles Consumer Privacy Breach Lawsuit in Ill.----------------------------------------------------------------Delta Financial Corp. agreed to an individual nuisance value settlement with regards to a purported class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In or about February 2007, the company received notice that it was named as a defendant in a case, which is alleging that it had accessed certain consumers' credit reports without a permissible purpose under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and sent improper prescreening offers in Illinois.

The case is based upon alleged violations of the FCRA, common law invasion of privacy, and consumer fraud/unfair acts and practices.

The complaint sought certification of a class of plaintiffs, injunctive relief against further violations, statutory damages and general and other damages, and attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses.

In March 2007, the company filed a motion for a stay of the action pending certain decisions expected to be rendered by other courts in actions pending against other companies, whose decisions in them may impact the legal issues involved in the company's case.

In March 2007, the Court stayed the action until June 2007. In June 2007, the plaintiff stipulated, without prejudice, to dismissing the common law invasion of privacy claim and the consumer fraud/unfair acts and practices claim, and dismissed only that part of the relief seeking injunctive relief on the FCRA claim.

In June 2007, the company filed an answer to the complaint and discovery is proceeding.

In July 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and the company's opposition filing was due in August 2007.

In September 2007, the company agreed to an individual nuisance value settlement on an individual basis with the plaintiff and the lawsuit has been dismissed.

DELTA FINANCIAL: Settlement of N.Y. Consumer Fraud Suit Opposed---------------------------------------------------------------Certain parties object to a proposed settlement of a class action filed against Delta Financial Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged violations of laws on consumer protection for deceptive practices.

In December 1998, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that the company had violated the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, the Truth-in-Lending Act and Section 349 of the New York State General Business Law, which relates to consumer protection for deceptive practices.

On Dec. 7, 1998, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, enjoining the company from conducting foreclosure sales on 11 properties.

The District Court ruled that in order to consider the motion, plaintiff must move to intervene on behalf of these 11 borrowers.

Thereafter, plaintiff moved to intervene on behalf of three of these 11 borrowers and sought injunctive relief on their behalf. The company opposed the motions.

On Dec. 14, 1998, the District Court granted the motion to intervene and on Dec. 23, 1998, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction that enjoined the company from proceeding with the foreclosure sales of the three interveners' properties. The company filed a motion for reconsideration of the Dec. 23, 1998 order.

In January 1999, the company filed an answer to plaintiffs' first amended complaint. In July 1999, the plaintiffs were granted leave, on consent to file a second amended complaint.

In August 1999, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that, among other things, added additional parties but contained the same causes of action alleged in the first amended complaint.

In September 1999, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was opposed by plaintiffs and, in June 2000, was denied in part and granted in part by the District Court.

In October 1999, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order preventing the company, its attorneys and/or the New York State Banking Department (NYSBD) from issuing notices to a number of borrowers, in accordance with the settlement agreement entered into by and between the NYSBD and the company. In the fourth quarter of 1999, the company and the NYSBD submitted opposition to the plaintiffs' motion.

In March 2000, the District Court issued an order that permitted the company to issue an approved form of the notice. In September 1999, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the company opposed in February 2000, and which was ultimately withdrawn without prejudice by the plaintiffs in January 2001.

In February 2002, the company executed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, under which it denied all wrongdoing, but agreed to resolve the litigation on a class-wide basis.

The District Court preliminarily approved the settlement and a fairness hearing was held in May 2002. The company submitted supplemental briefing at the court's request in or about April 2004.

In August 2004, the District Court conditionally approved the settlement, subject to the company's submitting supplemental documentation regarding a change in the settlement agreement and proposed supplemental notices to be sent to those borrowers who either opted out or objected.

The company, plaintiffs and certain objectors submitted its respective supplemental submissions in August 2004 and the District Court granted its final approval to the settlement in January 2005.

In February 2005, certain objectors filed a notice of appeal. The objectors filed their appellate brief in July 2005. The company filed its appellate papers in opposition in September 2005, and the objectors filed their reply papers in September 2005.

In February 2006, the Appellate Court vacated the District Court's decision to approve the settlement, not based on the merits of the settlement, but because a motion to intervene was decided by the District Court Magistrate Judge and not the District Court.

The Appellate Court instructed the District Court to rule on the motion to intervene and, until then, it cannot be determined if the District Court will also have to rule on the fairness of the settlement, or if that issue will have to return to the Appellate Court.

Briefing on the intervention motion was re-submitted to the District Court Judge in July 2006, and the motion was denied in November 2006.

In January 2007, the company executed a proposed amendment to the settlement with the plaintiffs, which did not increase the settlement amount.

In March 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement and the proposed notice to the class.

In April 2007, certain objectors filed an opposition to the motion for preliminary approval. The company filed its reply to the objectors' opposition in May 2007. The plaintiffs also filed their reply to the objectors' opposition in May 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter at its Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Lopez v. Delta Funding Corp. et al., Case No. 1:98-cv-07204-MDG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of New York under Judge Marilyn D. Go.

DENDREON CORP: Wash. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated securities fraud class actions filed against Dendreon Corp.

Three of these suits name Dendreon and its chief executive officer as defendants and allege a proposed class period of March 30, 2007 through May 8, 2007. One suit names Dendreon, four of its executive officers, and two members of our board of directors and alleges a proposed class period of March 1, 2007 through May 8, 2007.

All four proposed class actions purport to state claims for securities law violations stemming from the company's disclosures related to Provenge and the U.S. Food and Drug Administraion's actions regarding its pending biologics license application for Provenge.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the caption, “McGuire v. Dendreon Corp., et al.,” and designated a lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff has indicated that he intends to designate the complaint filed June 6, 2007 in “McGuire, et al. v. Dendreon Corp., et al.,” as the operative complaint.

Dendreon Corp. -- http://www.dendreon.com-- is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of therapeutics that harness the immune system to fight cancer.

DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiff in a purported class action against DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. filed a demand to compel class arbitration in the case, which was previously dismissed by U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana back in March.

DVA Renal is formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc. It is now a subsidiary of DaVita, Inc.

The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants for health care goods and services from on or about January 1991 through at least December 2004.

The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting from facts and circumstances underlying DVA Renal's December 2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and certain agencies of the U.S. Government.

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter. In August 2006, the plaintiff proceeded with a demand to compel arbitration.

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.

In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class arbitration against the company and DVA Renal Healthcare.

DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co. v. Gambro AB, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon with referral to Judge C. Michael Hill.

DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.----------------------------------------------------------------DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. still faces a class action in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the state's labor laws.

In June 2004, DVA Renal was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of California by one of its former employees that worked for its California acute services program.

The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among other things, that DVA Renal failed to provide overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other California labor code requirements.

DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- is a provider of dialysis services in the U.S. for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end-stage renal disease. The company also provides acute inpatient dialysis services in approximately 770 hospitals and related laboratory services.

ENERGY PARTNERS: Del. Suit Over Merger with Stone Energy Junked---------------------------------------------------------------Parties in a putative securities class action filed in Delaware against Energy Partners, Ltd. have filed motions that has dismissed the matter.

On Sept. 12, 2006, Thomas Farrington, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action against the Company, all of the Company's directors, EPL Acquisition Corp. LLC, and Stone Energy Corp. in the Delaware Court. The suit is in relation to the company's terminated merger agreement with Stone Energy Corp.

As amended on Oct. 19, 2006, the complaint in the Farrington Action alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the termination fee provisions in the Merger Agreement, adopting the sixth-month stockholders rights agreement, amending and extending coverage to all full time employees of its change of control severance arrangements, and paying a fee to Stone in connection with the termination of the Merger Agreement.

The Farrington action also alleges that the Companys directors failed to adequately disclose material information relevant to the Company stockholders decision whether to accept the Woodside Tender Offer.

On July 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a petition for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. A trial on plaintiff’s fee petition is scheduled for Nov. 29, 2007.

This case was dismissed on the motion of all parties in September 2007, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Energy Partners Ltd. -- http://www.eplweb.com/-- is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company. The Company's operations are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico Shelf, the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, as well as the Gulf Coast onshore region (the Gulf of Mexico Region).

The suit was filed in a Florida federal court. It generally alleges that during a period of 8 1/2 years begining in May 1999, Highmark and other insurers “engaged in a conspiracy to improperly deny, delay and/or reduce payment to physicians, physician groups and physician organizations by engaging in several types of allegedly improperly conduct.”

It further alleges that the improper conduct violated the federal statute known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Though denying all allegations, representatives of Highmark and its affiliated companies, including Keystone Health Plan West, Highmark West Virginia Inc, doing business as Mountain State Blue Cross Blue Shield, along with Parker Benefits Inc., doing business as Super Blue HMO, recently opted to settle the matter, citing significant costs involved in litigating the lawsuit.

According to a preliminary settlement obtained by The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

-- Highmark and its affiliated defendants agree to set up a settlement fund totaling nearly $10 million.

-- Highmark and its affiliated defendants agreed to pay attorney's fees not to exceed $3.8 million.

-- The insurers agreed to pay $7,500 per plaintiff. It's unknown how many plaintiffs could be part of this agreement.

In a prepared statement, the company said that “Like other commercial insurers and the majority of Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Highmark has entered into a settlement agreement of a national class action lawsuit brought by physicians, pending final approval by the U.S. District Court in Miami.”

MICROSOFT CORP: Senior Official Denies Wrongdoing in Wash. Suit---------------------------------------------------------------A senior official of Microsoft Corp. has denied any wrongdoing in a purported class action against the company with regards to “Windows Vista Capable” stickers on computers, and even pointed out “kinks” in the plaintiffs case.

Case Background

The suit, “Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-MJP,” was filed by Dianne L. Kelley on March 29, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Her legal representative in the case is the law firm of Gordon Murray Tilden LLP (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2007).

Prior to the availability of Vista, Microsoft launched a marketing campaign that allowed PC makers to place a sticker on computers alerting potential buyers that they could upgrade to Vista when it became available.

However, according to the suit, “a large number” of those PCs were only capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista, which lacks many of the features, such as media center, and enhanced graphics, which Microsoft advertises as included in Vista.

It was reported that when Microsoft later offered buyers of “Windows Vista Capable” computers free or reduced-price upgrades to Vista, the company offered Home Basic to many customers.

Additionally, the suit claims that Bill Gates contributed to the deception by saying on NBC's Today Show, PC users could upgrade to Windows Vista for just $100.

A jury trial on the matter is scheduled to begin on Oct. 27, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007).

Allegations Denied

In a statement obtained by The Mac Observer, Microsoft Senior Public Relations Manager, David Bowermaster, pointed to some elements that the company believes significantly undermine the plaintiff's case and eligibility for class certification.

Mr. Bowermaster pointed out:

-- Rather than conducting “deceptive and unfair marketing,” Microsoft provided a large amount of information to consumers through a variety of channels – PC manufacturers, retailers, the media and from Microsoft itself – about "Windows Vista Capable," the differing versions of Vista, and their varying hardware requirements.

-- Diane Kelley testified in her deposition that she did not see the “Windows Vista Capable” sticker on her daughter’s laptop until several months after she bought it, and neither the sticker nor Vista (which she had never heard of) influenced her buying decision.

-- Ms. Kelley and Kenneth Hansen, the other named plaintiff, had widely different knowledge about computers and operating systems when they made their purchases, and each were influenced by different factors to buy the machines and operating systems they did. Such disparities would be widespread among buyers of Windows Vista Capable PCs and would thus negate the uniformity of alleged injury required for class certification.

-- Neither Ms. Kelley nor Mr. Hansen used the “Express Upgrade” to Windows Vista, so they have no basis to make class certification claims about customers who did.

The suit is “Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-MJP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

NEW MEXICO: Dona Ana Jail Settles Strip Suit by Former Inmates --------------------------------------------------------------U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson granted preliminary approval to a $5 million settlement of a strip search suit filed by former inmates of Dona Ana County Detention Center, Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of five men and two women wanting that the center stop strip-searching almost everyone booked into jail (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2006). Court rulings prohibit such searches unless there's reasonable suspicion an individual might be trying to smuggle in weapons or contraband. It is only allowed after inmates visit with members of the public and after court-ordered detention.

The suit alleged the searches violate constitutional rights todue process and to be free from unreasonable searches andseizures and from cruel and unusual punishment, according to thereport. It asked unspecified damages, and sought class-action status.

Associated Press reports on Nov. 24 that Judge Johnson certified the suit and preliminarily approved its settlement. Attorneys say about 2,000 former inmates could receive payments under the settlement.

Former inmates booked into the jail between March 7, 2003, and March 7, 2006, are potentially eligible for estimated payments.

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Feb. Hearing Set in Tex. Securities Suit Deal----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has set a final approval hearing on February 6, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., for the $3.6 million settlement of a purported securitiesfraud class action filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc. and certainof its current and former officers and directors.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of allpurchasers of the company's common stock from April 25, 2001through Oct. 8, 2001 and sought damages in unspecified amounts.The court later consolidated similar complaints with the“Walker” suit in October 2002.

On Nov. 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs in the “Walker” suit filedan amended consolidated complaint, which added certain of thecompany's outside directors as defendants to the Exchange Actclaims.

The amended complaint also added additional claims that thecompany, and certain of its current and former officers anddirectors, violated various provisions of the Securities Act asa result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions inconnection with an offering in May 2001 and also added themanaging underwriters in that offering as defendants.

On Feb. 7, 2003, the company, along with certain officer anddirector defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the matter aswell as a motion to transfer venue.

In addition, the company's outside directors named in the matterseparately filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Act claimson statute of limitations grounds.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the underwriter defendants also filed a motionto dismiss the matter. The plaintiffs filed response briefs tothese motions, to which the company replied on May 21, 2003. Ahearing was held by the court on June 26, 2003 to hear each ofthese motions.

In its order on the motions to dismiss, the Court granted thelead plaintiffs leave to replead the case within certainparameters.

On July 7, 2004, the plaintiffs again repled their claims byfiling a third amended consolidated complaint, raisingallegations of similar violations against the same partiesgenerally based upon alleged facts not previously asserted.

The company, along with certain officer and director defendantsand the underwriter defendants, filed motions to dismiss thethird amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 23, 2004. Ahearing on the motions was held on April 14, 2005.

On July 25, 2005, the court ruled on these motions, dismissingwith prejudice the claims against the outside directors as wellas the underwriter defendants, but denying the company's motionto dismiss.

In evaluating this motion to dismiss, the court was required toview the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiffsand to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the company filed a motion to certify thedismissal order for an interlocutory appeal, which was denied onNov. 14, 2005.

A hearing on class certification was held on June 22, 2006. Thecourt has made no ruling on the motion for class certification.Discovery is ongoing.

Settlement

On Oct. 29, 2007, the company announced that it had reached aprospective settlement with the plaintiffs to resolve “TerryWalker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al.,” a putative classaction filed in federal court in Texarkana, Texas, alleging thatthe company violated various federal securities laws.

Under the terms of the settlement, which has now been documentedand was preliminarily approved by the court on Oct. 31, 2007,the company anticipate its insurance carrier will pay anaggregate of $3.6 million in cash, which will be distributed toan agreed upon class of claimants who purchased the company'scommon stock from April 25, 2001 through Oct. 8, 2001, as wellas used to pay costs of notice and settlement administration,and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses.

This month, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas gave preliminary approval to the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2007).

The suit is "Walker, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, et al., Case No.5:02-cv-00003-DF," filed in the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom.

UNITED NATIONS: Dutch Court Allows Suit Over Srebrenica Massacre ----------------------------------------------------------------A court in the Netherlands allowed a class action by families of approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslims who were killed in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre to go ahead against the United Nations and the Netherlands, The Jurist reports.

The suit was filed in the Dutch Supreme Court in The Hague, Netherlands on June 4 (Class Action Reporter, June 7, 2007). It alleges that both the U.N. and Netherlands failed to protect Muslim civilians from the 1995 genocide, also known as the Srebrenica massacre. Many of the victims were refugees that relocated to the Srebrenica enclave declared to be a "safe area" by the U.N. Security Council in 1993.

The U.N. had argued it was immune under Article 2 Section 2 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. The provision says the U.N.'s property and assets "shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except it has expressly waived its immunity."

Lawyer Marco Gerritsen represents approximately 6,000 family members of victims in the lawsuit.

UNITED STATES: Appeals Court Junks Suit Over Michael Bianco Raid ----------------------------------------------------------------Judges of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a dismissal of a suit filed on behalf of more than 250 undocumented workers who were detained during a 2006 raid of a company suspected of employing large numbers of illegal immigrants, Karen Lee Ziner of Providence Journal reports.

On March 6, The federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided Michael Bianco company, a Defense Department contractor, as part of the government’s Operation United Front. The operation were against the company owner and several managers. Those detained made up most of the rank-and-file work force of the company. The cases of three of those executives, including company owner Francesco Insolia, are pending, according to the report.

The suit claims approximately 260 undocumented immigrants were denied a host of due-process rights during and after the raid. The ICE allegedly violated certain of the petitioners’ constitutional and statutory rights.

The government argued that the case be dismissed because the district court did not have jurisdiction. On May 22, the lower court dismissed the case.

Recently, a three-judge panel the circuit court upheld the dismissal. The appellate court ruled that the lower court's dismissal of the case is proper, but that the manner in which it was conducted was not.

The appellate court concluded that "some of the petitioners’ claims are unpreserved, some are subject to a jurisdictional bar and others are simply not actionable. The common denominator is that none of the claims can proceed in the district court.”

The appellate judges noted in part that some of the detainees’ remedies may lie with the immigration court, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals and then by the court of appeals.

Several lead lawyers are considering what options they have, including seeking reconsideration by the full First Circuit Court of Appeals or seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

WESTLING MANUFACTURING: Settles Labor Violations Suit in Minn.--------------------------------------------------------------Westling Manufacturing Co. reached a $120,000 settlement for a purported class action which claims that the company failed to provide mandatory notices pertaining to the layoffs of about 240 employees.

Filed on Feb. 8, 2006, the suit charges that defendants misled and/or were negligent in providing information to employees concerning their employment status. It also charges defendants of failing to compensate plaintiffs for wages and benefits due them and reimburse expenses prepaid by plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants are jointly and severally liable under the “alter ego and piercing the corporate veil theories of recovery, and in their capacities as fiduciaries of benefit plans.”

Besides the company other defendants in the case are Westling Leasing Co., John W. Westling and his children Tom, Allyson Leonard and Kathryn Westling, and Westling Mfg. chief financial officer Jeff Tillman.

According to the suit, the company informed about 78 employees last Oct. 17, 2006 that they were being laid off immediately. The number was about 32 percent of the workforce.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the remaining employees were called to a meeting and told the company's creditor had accepted a financial plan and would work with the company until the end of the year.

The suit contends that the employees were told they had job security until the end of the year.

However, on Nov. 3, 2006, employees were told the company could not make the prior week's payroll when it was due on Nov. 4, or the current week's payroll due in another week. The suit claims the employees were not told at that time what their job status were.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants have committed five counts of violations:

-- Count 2: violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by not paying certain benefits;

-- Count 3: violation of ERISA, namely breach of fiduciary duty;

-- Count 4: failure to pay wages promptly; and

-- County 5: conversion of property.

The lawsuit accused Westling Mfg. of Count 1 violation because it employed more than 100 full-time workers.

According to the lawsuit, some employees used personal credit cards to pay certain company expenses and were not reimbursed for them.

It also claims the defendants did not make certain contributions to employee accounts within the company's retirement and profit-sharing plan, even though money was deducted from paychecks.

Another claim is that the defendants failed to pay medical bills pursuant to the company's group health care plan for medical costs incurred by individuals prior to defendants informing the employees their medical insurance was discontinued.

The suit alleges that Westling Leasing, which leased vehicles to Westling Mfg., was not treated as a separate entity as it should have been.

Instead, it alleges that Westling Leasing was used as a siphon and mechanism to remove funds from Westling Mfg. to other defendants, including John Westling.

The suit also gives many accounts of the company paying for various personal purchases or activities that benefited defendants.

Settlement

In reaching the settlement, defendants pointed out that that the reason for settling was to avoid further expense and time involved in “burdensome and protracted litigation.”

The parties who brought the lawsuit stated a few months ago there were about 235 class members who may have had claims under the settlement. Class refers to the former employees who were entitled to apply for proceeds in the settlement

The fairness hearing went through on Nov. 15, 2007, and it was agreed a settlement payment will be made on behalf of the defendants totaling $120,000 to fully settle the class claims.

The $120,000 will be reduced by fees for the attorneys representing the class, as well as certain costs to prosecute and also reduced by certain payments to be made to the 10 class representatives, the ones who initiated and followed through with the lawsuit. They are each to receive $300 for their time, expense and effort.

The remaining sum is to be distributed on a pro rata basis to class members who submit a timely claim.

The suit is “Dickinson et al v. Westling Manufacturing Co. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-00528-JMR-RLE,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Raymond L. Erickson.

BANKATLANTIC INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP announced that a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. from November 9, 2005 through October 25, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges BankAtlantic and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BankAtlantic is a financial services holding company that, through its subsidiaries, provides a full line of products and services encompassing consumer and commercial banking. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

(1) that the Company had granted a $27 million loan without having obtained an adequate appraisal of the underlying collateral;

(2) that the Company had failed to properly classify this under-collateralized $27 million loan as an impaired loan;

(3) that the Company's exposure to "at-risk" loans was significantly understated;

(4) that the Company had significantly under-reserved for loan losses in its portfolio, which had the effect of understating the Company's loan loss reserves and overstating its net income;

(5) that the Company had deferred the recognition of losses associated with certain non-accrual loans rather than taking timely writedowns on such loans;

(6) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times;

(7) that the defendants had failed to comply with the Company's policies relating to collateral based lending, underwriting and risk management;

(8) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and

(9) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On October 25, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported its third quarter 2007 financial and operational results. For the quarter, the Company announced a net loss of $29.6 million, or ($0.52) per diluted share, as compared to net income of $2.5 million, or $0.04 per diluted share, for the third quarter of 2006. Additionally, the Company disclosed that its non- performing loans had increased from $21.8 million at June 30, 2007 to $165.4 million at September 30, 2007, and that its loss experience for the quarter was a net charge-off of $11.3 million, as compared to a net recovery of $0.2 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2006. Included in the $11.3 million net charge-off was $8.8 million related to the write-down of one "builder land bank loan." On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.93 per share, or over 38.3 percent, to close on October 26, 2007 at $4.72 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

FOCUS MEDIA: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Focus Media Holding Limited in the Company's secondary public offering on or about November 7, 2007.

The complaint charges Focus Media and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act of 1933. Focus Media operates out-of-home advertising network using audiovisual television displays in the People's Republic of China.

According to the complaint, on or about November 1, 2007, Focus Media filed a Form F-1/A Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for the Secondary Offering. On or about November 6, 2007, the Prospectus (the "Prospectus") with respect to the Secondary Offering, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and more than 13.5 million shares of Focus Media's ADSs at $64.75 per ADS were sold to the public, thereby raising more than $888 million.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and the Prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material fact because they failed to disclose that the Company had made numerous acquisitions in its Internet advertising business division which were depressing its gross margins in that important division. On November 19, 2007, after the close of the market, Focus Media issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period ending September 30, 2007. Among other things, the Company reported that its gross margins for the third quarter of 2007 had declined due to several recent acquisitions. Following the Company's earnings release, on November 20, 2007, the price of Focus Media ADSs dropped from $57.15 per ADS to $52.00 per ADS on extremely heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court within sixty days of November 27, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

HOMEBANC CORP: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.---------------------------------------------------------------Saxena White P.A., on November 30, 2007, filed suit on behalf of shareholders against HomeBanc Corp. (PINKSHEETS: HMBN) (PINKSHEETS: HMBNP) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, the Company, prior to filing for bankruptcy, engaged in the mortgage banking business principally in the southeast United States. HomeBanc primarily focused on originating purchase money mortgage loans and offered various fixed and adjustable-rate residential mortgage loan products.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who acquired HomeBanc common stock from March 7, 2006 through and including August 3, 2007 (the "Class Period"), including those investors who purchased the Company's 10% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series A Preferred Stock") pursuant or traceable to HomeBanc's February 2, 2006 offering in which the Company sold 2 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock for $25.00 per share (the "Offering").

The lawsuit claims that HomeBanc, founder and former Chief Executive Officer Patrick S. Flood, and other executives and directors of the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that prior to the Offering and during the Class Period, Defendants issued false and misleading statements touting the Company's positive financial results and future business prospects, and withheld from investors material adverse information indicating that the internal business environment, structure and policies at HomeBanc were in a severe state of deterioration.

In addition, the lawsuit claims Defendants manipulated the Company's financial results prior to the Offering in an effort to increase demand for the Company's Series A Preferred Stock and entice investors to purchase the Company's common stock.In marked contrast to the Company's positive statements prior to the Offering, HomeBanc issued a press release on November 6, 2006 announcing substantial losses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 -- the second quarter following the Offering. Over the course of the next thirteen months, HomeBanc would release increasingly adverse financial results, culminating in the August 3, 2007 suspension of the listing of the Company's common stock and Series A Preferred Stock on the NYSE.

Finally, on August 7, 2007, HomeBanc announced that it was unable to satisfy its mortgage loan funding obligations, and on August 9, 2007, HomeBanc filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Less than a year-and-a-half after the Company's Offering in which it obtained $50 million from unknowing investors, HomeBanc was bankrupt and the Company's shares were worthless.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 29, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

HOME SOLUTIONS: Sarraf Gentile Files Tex. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP has filed a securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of those investors who acquired the securities of Home Solutions of America, Inc. between May 18, 2007 and November 14, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that HSOA and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning construction contracts for projects at three sites in New York, including Manhattan, and a site in Florida. Unbeknownst to investors, Defendants failed to disclose that:

(i) HSOA did not have an agreement with Blue Diamond Construction to perform construction with respect to at least one of the three New York sites Defendants had previously identified; and,

(ii) the party that had reportedly awarded the Florida contract to HSOA was a party related to HSOA.

On August 15, 2007, HSOA revealed that

(i) the Florida project was a related party transaction;

(ii) that in July HSOA had "received informal inquiries from the SEC and Nasdaq with respect to prior disclosure and related issues;" and

(iii) that management had requested that the audit committee perform an investigation into related party transactions and disclosures.

Then, on September 27, 2007, Defendants acknowledged that they did not have a contract for the Manhattan element of the New York projects. Finally, on November 14, 2007, HSOA announced that it would delay the filing of its third quarter financial results, citing its "voluntary review of related party transactions." On this news, HSOA's stock dropped over 20% to close at $1.57 per share on November 15, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 21, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

VIRGIN MOBILE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.----------------------------------------------------------------Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC filed a class action against Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. (VM) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Virgin Mobile, relating to the company's IPO on or about Oct. 11, 2007.

Virgin Mobile, together with certain of its officers and directors, certain controlling majority shareholders, and its underwriters have been charged for providing false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO.

The lawsuit states that the defendants failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the company prior to the IPO. They also failed to reveal, at the time of the IPO, that Virgin Mobile was not performing well.

The suit is “Volpe, et al. v. Schuman, et al., Case No. 07-CV-05619,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Susan D. Wigenton.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.